Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Lord's distinguished career in the foreign service and in UN disarmament conferences mean that he will know how difficult and intricate it is to get discussions going on a problem that has persisted for that length of time. Where it is helpful, we have made it clear bilaterally and through the quartet that the issues around the barrier, which could now take in two major settlement blocks, are a problem in producing a contiguous state for the Palestinians. Israel has a right to self-defence, but the barrier certainly should be on or behind the green line, if that how it is dealt with. The issue of the settlements is also very important.
	I made the point in your Lordships' House just last week that we regard as illegal a good deal of the buildings. We have also made that point to the Israeli Government. Both sides have obligations that they have to meet, and the Israelis will be sensitive to those.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the undertakings given by the Palestinians and other Arab states at the conference in March in London focused on some of those very points. We are using all of our endeavours to try to ensure that the commitments that were made are kept to. In a practical sense, we are providing a good deal of assistance in the form of police cars, training of the police for Gaza and liaison with the Palestinian Authority in order to ensure that it has a real hold on Gaza in the period immediately after the handover. The quartet reviews all practical steps literally on a day-by-day basis.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in this particular case it would be wise to await the careful consideration that undoubtedly will be given by officials to the circumstances of the individuals concerned. I am not going to be drawn to comment on particular visits made by Ministers to discuss very sensitive issues because it would be wrong of me to do so from the Dispatch Box. I want to make it absolutely clear that we would not seek to deport anyone if there was a real and probable threat of that person being tortured or ill-treated by another country.

Lord Lipsey: rose to call attention to the workings of the British electoral system in the 2005 general election; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should first remind the House that I am chair of Make Votes Count, the voting reform campaigning organisation.
	Voting reform has never been a terrific crowd pleaser but that does not make it any the less important. This is our first ever "debates Thursday". The House is in a holiday mood and so I shall start with a little fairy tale.
	A Martian visits London. "Take me to your leader", he says. But he is swiftly told that that is not quite so simple here and is whisked round to Parliament to have explained to him—perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who chairs with such distinction the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House—the wonders of our democratic election-based governance.
	Being by definition an intelligent being, the Martian is, of course, much taken by what he hears. In particular, he wants to know all about the results of our latest general election. So he "googles" the Internet—Martians, of course, have the Internet built into their brains and so no connection is necessary—and he comes across an analysis of the results from the Electoral Reform Society.
	This is what he learns. Of the total electorate, just three in five people chose to vote. Of those, a little under 35.2 per cent voted Labour, by far the lowest share of any winning party in the last century and this. Labour won the votes of 21.6 per cent of the electorate but was rewarded with 55.1 per cent of the seats in Parliament. If the Conservatives had polled the same vote share as Labour, they would nevertheless have had 116 fewer seats; Labour would still have had an overall majority of 26. To get as many seats as Labour, the Tories would need to poll at least 6 per cent more votes.
	Only around two-thirds of MPs got the support of 50 per cent or more of the voters in their constituencies; no MP got the support of as many as half of their electorate. Every million voters who voted Labour secured 37 MPs; every million Tories, 22 MPs; every million Liberal Democrats, 10. Almost one voter in five voted not for the party they preferred but for the party that tactically they felt it best to vote for. I could go on and on and on.
	Noble Lords should ask themselves this question: would the Martian be more likely to conclude that none of this mattered—that the advantages of strong government outweighed these affronts to justice—or would he more likely reel away wondering how his distinguished and brilliant interlocutors such as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, could be so blind as to defend such a travesty?
	In particular, there is one minimal test which any system which claims to be democratic should have to pass. It need not be proportional—I shall come back to that—but it must be unbiased. That is to say, the rules of the game have to be such that parties that do equally well in the votes that they collect do equally well in seats. As I have shown, the British system now abjectly fails that test.
	Indeed, it now fits more readily into the various distortions of democracy seen around the world, where gerrymandering is employed to keep those in power in power. In a recent case involving postal vote manipulation, the judge said that our system would disgrace a banana republic. But that is not only true of postal voting. Our system now stands barely better than the systems that your Lordships regularly deplore in other nations without the law—banana republic Britain.
	Does this matter? By being present today in gratifying numbers your Lordships indicate that for you these matters at least need debate. I thank all who are present and those who will be speaking.
	I think I can illustrate the concern that I have by reporting the reaction that I have had to this debate from some of my colleagues on the Labour Benches. I do not criticise them for this—it is quite natural—but they have asked "Why are you raising this issue now? You are casting doubt on the Government's mandate". By God I am, my Lords! Elections are the supreme authority in any democratic system. They—and they alone—confer on the Government the right and legitimacy by which they rule. If therefore the elections are manifestly faulty—as under our system they are—so then is the basis for that legitimacy and so then is that authority undermined.
	We have seen this in the first days and weeks of the new Government. On some days Ministers seem to recognise that the election result was something less than a wholesale triumph. The humble, listening Prime Minister who limped back from Sedgefield illustrated this. But on other days we have seen an arrogance that defies belief, a wilful ignoring of the message delivered by the electorate on the basis that it can be ignored because, after all, the Government have an overall majority in the House of Commons.
	So far as the people are concerned—and it is the people that we serve—as soon as the Government start doing things that they do not like, as they will quite soon, the people will be perfectly able to retort, "But most of us did not vote you". What will be the answer to that?
	The legitimacy genie is out of the bottle. It cannot be stuffed back in by the political elite. Either our electoral system is re-examined or there will be a rottenness at the heart of our democracy.
	I am sure—as I can see from the nods of noble Lords opposite—that this will come as music to the ears of the Liberal Democrats and I cheerfully embrace their support. However, the two big parties still seem determined to defend the system, warts and all.
	Perhaps I may first say a word to the Conservative Party. I am told that, by some strange alchemy, those taken prisoner by terrorists fall in love with the people who are inflicting such terrible cruelties on them. It is the same with the Tories and first past the post. Here is a party which is being extraordinarily disadvantaged by first past the post and we do not have yet a single Conservative MP—unlike some Members of this House, I am pleased to say—who has dared to stand up and tell the evident truth.
	It will be very kind of the noble Baroness to defend the system when she winds up for the Conservatives, but does she know what it is doing to her own party? The bias in the present system makes it extremely hard for the Conservatives to win an overall majority. To do so they would need to poll, at a bare minimum, 42 to 43 per cent of the national vote. From 1997 to 2005, the Conservative share of the vote rose at a rate of around 0.2 per cent per year. On this basis, I calculate that they might hope to achieve an overall majority in the election of 2061. Never mind choosing their next leader, on this basis the next Prime Minister of a Conservative government with an overall majority has yet to be born.
	But my main argument today is aimed at my own party, the Labour Party, of which I have now been a member for cracking on for 40 years. I understand, of course, that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is not able to be with us today but I am absolutely delighted that he has such an eloquent and appropriate deputy in my noble friend Lady Ashton, who we welcome to her new responsibilities. Although my noble and learned friend could not be here today, he was able to appear on the "Today" programme earlier in the week and to state his views on the subject.
	My noble and learned friend put forward three arguments with which I wish briefly to take issue. First, he said that change would mean endless coalition government; secondly, that it would encourage extremist parties; and, thirdly, he said that there was no groundswell of opinion for change.
	At the heart of the first two charges lies a basic—I could almost say "schoolboy" if it was not of such a brilliant man—error which equates electoral reform with proportional representation. Of course some electoral reformers support PR—good luck to them—but I am emphatically not one. I support the broad thrust of the report of the Jenkins committee, of which I was a member and which took a quite different approach. It recognised—indeed, its terms of reference stated—that electoral systems have to balance various, and sometimes contradictory, considerations—for example, proportionality, strong government, voter choice and so on. Jenkins concluded—and developments since strongly reinforce that conclusion—that our system was out of kilter and that balance needed to be restored.
	As Jenkins clearly argued, coalition government is not necessarily—contrary to the Lord Chancellor's view—weak government. The post-war history of Germany, until very recently, shows that. Nor is majority government necessarily strong government. We remember John Major's majority government, and I wonder whether things will turn out all that differently for this Labour Government, majority and all.
	Be that as it may, Jenkins would not mean permanent coalition. The AV+ system it recommends is rather more proportional than the present system but by no means totally proportional. A Government, Labour or Tory, who got around 42 to 44 per cent of the vote would have every chance of an overall majority. Ironically, this is no more than the Tories require to get an overall majority under the present system. It is only Labour which benefits from the present system at all.
	Nor would the Jenkins system encourage extremists. Pure PR systems do that—Israel, for example—and that is why I am against them. But under the Jenkins system of county top-ups, extremist parties would not win seats with less than 10 per cent of the vote. The British National Party, in particular, would not come anywhere securing a seat in Parliament.
	The final point that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made was that there was no groundswell of support for change. While my putative Martian was en route for London, it seems that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was en route for Mars. On every possible indicator of public opinion, concern about the electoral system has dominated debate since the general election.
	NOP's poll for the Independent showed 62 per cent support for reform. I have never seen a figure like that in all the years of polling on this subject. Some 20,000 people responded to the Independent's campaign on electoral reform. Phone-in programmes such as "Any Questions" and "Any Answers" have been dominated by the debate. Three hundred and fifty angry reformers—the largest public meeting I have seen in 40 years in and around this House—filled Committee Room 14 for a meeting of reformers just after the election. And so on, and so on. The only places this clamour fails to penetrate is the closed mind of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and, I fear, of the Prime Minister, under whom he serves. But the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and even—I say this with genuine personal regret—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may not be with us for ever, and after they are gone, perhaps wiser counsels will prevail.
	I conclude with some questions for my noble friend who is replying to this debate and who is endlessly solicitous when asked specific questions. Can she say a little more about the review of voting systems promised by the Government in their election manifesto and now under way? What are its terms of reference? Is it intended to receive representations and take evidence from outside parties, or is it a private, hole-in-corner government review designed simply to park the issue?
	What steps are being taken to test the proposition of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that there is no public demand for change? Will the Government conduct their own polling? Will they use citizens' juries? Will my noble friend study the recent consultation on the subject in British Columbia, which developed the citizens' jury technique and produced, incidentally, a 58 per cent majority for change when the people were fully informed? When does she expect the review to be complete? What consultations do the Government plan to undertake on their findings?
	I conclude with a final question—or perhaps, more honestly, a challenge. Will the Government now agree that, after the review, they will fulfil their 1997 election pledge to hold a referendum on the electoral system, a referendum that would test once and for all whether the Lord Chancellor's claim that the public are not eager for change is true or, as I earnestly believe, wholly false? I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on having secured this debate in the ballot. I scarcely know a tithe of what he knows about the subject, but I congratulate him on a balanced and comprehensive opening to the debate, for which I think your Lordships' House is extremely grateful.
	I volunteered very late to speak in the debate and have found myself promoted to speak rather early, on a day when, I gather, Mr Michael Vaughan has won the toss and put the Bangladeshis in. I am, on the whole, sympathetic to that view. However, given my place in the batting order, I should perhaps say that I am not speaking on behalf of the Association of Conservative Peers, of which I am an officer, nor am I speaking on behalf of the board of the Conservative Party, of which I am an ex officio member.
	I should like to dwell on three issues; I am picking up things that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said. I refer first to the relationship between the number of seats gained by certain parties, the number of votes cast for them and the number of votes required to win a seat. The noble Lord dwelt on that. Before Mr Lynton Crosby left for Australia, on the sad day when Kylie Minogue was discovered to have breast cancer, said of her that she was not a whinger and that the Tory Party should not be whingers either. I hope that we are not being whingers on the subject of votes. But there are implications relating to the Boundary Commission and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, to proportional representation.
	When I say that we are not whingers, my recollection, going back to the period when I first started taking an interest in these matters in the 1950s, is that the position then was exactly the reverse. The Labour Party was piling up huge majorities in seats, but the number of seats they secured did not reflect the number of votes that they were getting. The views of the Liberal Party on the subject are well known and have been reiterated exhaustively—and exhaustingly—over the years.
	I realise that the country is becoming more mobile than it once was. In the "Reader's Digest" atlas of the United Kingdom, published in the late 1960s, there was a map devoted to the colour of hair that demonstrated an exact correlation to how far the Vikings got. I think we have speeded up in the course of the past 35 years. The differences that occur in the sizes of seats are occurring faster than they used to, which may have an implication for the Boundary Commission's periodicity.
	Against that, there is an advantage in having enough time between one set of Boundary Commission decisions and the next one to see whether it has got right the recommendations that it has made. I should like to make a personal observation out of my experience in Westminster, which admittedly is an odd seat because it is an inner-city seat with very great mobility of voters. The Boundary Commissioner, against the advice that I submitted to the inquiry in 1991, gave me the whole of Bayswater and the whole of Lancaster Gate. In the process, it took the boundaries of the second seat in Westminster outside the city boundaries of Westminster and took in five wards in north Kensington and Notting Hill. I thought that that was a mistake because the population of Westminster was growing at a pace that warranted retaining the two seats. I went through the difficulties in the 1997 Parliament of having those two extra wards. The Boundary Commission has now agreed that the point was right and has reversed the situation so that at the next election, if the orders go through, Westminster will go back to being two seats and not one and a half. So, you need enough time between sets of recommendations to see whether the changes have been validated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right about the attitude of the Conservative Party to proportional representation. I shall not dissent from those views today. In that sense, I am not serving as a whinger either.
	I want to say a brief word about postal votes because that subject came up serially in the previous Parliament, particularly in the year before the election. There was a curious event before the election to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, responded. In your Lordships' House, certain Peers and Peeresses on the Labour Benches sought to argue that the behaviour of Labour councillors in Birmingham had absolutely nothing to do with the Government. I did not say that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said this; it was an argument that came from behind her. The fact remains that quite a lot of other people in your Lordships' House think that there is a connection. No one can say that the two main opposition parties did not warn the Government of the hazards that they were running with their postal arrangements and, likewise, the consequences of not accepting the Electoral Commission's advice on the same subject.
	We had a series of referendums in the period immediately after 1997, as part of the constitutional package, and it was noticeable that the rules for the referendum varied from case to case—as if the kind of rules that we were gong to have for referendums could be made up as we went along. The arrangements happened to be quite favourable to the Government; and because of that series of referendums, I was delighted when the Electoral Commission was set up. It seemed to be introducing continuity and order into a situation that had become somewhat disordered.
	The contribution of the Electoral Commission would be much more convincing, however, if the Government did not so readily cherry-pick what they liked and ignore what they do not like. The Government claimed proudly on one occasion that they accepted 70 per cent of the recommendations that the Electoral Commission had made, but the minority of 30 per cent that they did not accept is still a large minority to pass by—particularly if you notice that, in those recommendations that were followed and those which were not, there were certain indices of government advantage or disadvantage in the decisions taken.
	I have read the Electoral Commission's new publication, published earlier this month, entitled Securing the Vote. I congratulate the Electoral Commission on its comprehensiveness and its timeousness. Obviously, postal voting is only one of the features that the commission includes.
	The Labour Party, which of course underpins the Government, about once every generation behaves in a way that taints democracy. I think back to the LCC elections of 1949, when the letter of the law was upheld but the spirit offended. Then we had the late Lord Callaghan's advice as Home Secretary to the parliamentary Labour Party that it should vote against the Boundary Commission recommendations that were being brought in under his administration. Now we have postal votes.
	I believe well of the Government and, after what has happened so far, expect them to act appropriately after the latest Electoral Commission report, just as the Late Lord Williams of Mostyn rewrote the Bill on electoral reform in Northern Ireland—literally—in this House. The Bill was completely changed, and he went back to the Northern Ireland Office and said that there had to be changes and that what the Opposition were saying in that instance was right.
	In the mean time, I hope that the Minister will deny categorically the rumours that came up in the election of a leaked Cabinet minute. The rumour was that, in the discussion on whether change should occur in postal voting, the decisive factor was the position of the Labour Party as a potential beneficiary. That leaked Cabinet minute cast an unkind light on a hearsay account during the general election. When a heckler shouted at the Deputy Prime Minister that he should have legislated again on postal votes before the election, the Deputy Prime Minister replied that they did not have time. If the leaked Cabinet minute is correct, they had plenty of time to legislate, if they had done so at the right time.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for bringing this debate forward. However, I do not think that it will come as any surprise to him when I say that I totally disagree with what he had to say.
	I approach the debate not in an academic sense but in a practical sense as someone who for nearly 40 years has been active in politics and in campaigning. For 15 years, I have run the elections for the Welsh Labour Party at all levels.
	Some people feel that the relatively low turnout at the general election and the share of the vote gained by the Government could be improved by having a different method of electing Members to the House of Commons. Some will argue that there are more democratic ways that would better reflect the wishes of the electorate. However, there are other elements of democracy that could be lost.
	I am in favour of the first-past-the-post system, especially for elections to the House of Commons. There are many reasons why that is the case. The link between the elected member and the constituency is just one. The system is familiar to the public. Votes are simple to cast and to count and it usually leads to a one-party majority government. The system enables electors to vote for a local representative but also to vote for the party that they wish to form a government. The system gives each Member of Parliament a direct relationship with a particular geographic area and enables the electors to have a Member of Parliament with whom they can identify. That link is not available in any other method of which I am aware.
	During the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979, Members were elected on the first-past-the-post system. They were accountable to their electorate and to their party, and the electorate were able to vote for a named person. That was changed in 1999, when the election was conducted under a form of PR. The electorate voted for a political party and not for a candidate. The constituencies were enlarged. For example, Wales is now a European constituency, and electors vote for a party on the party list and not for a named candidate. Much direct contact with the electorate has been lost. It can be difficult to enthuse party members to work in those elections. They do not feel a sense of ownership for a particular candidate.
	For the Welsh Assembly, a different form of elections was tried that had not been attempted before. In the Welsh Assembly elections, 40 seats are elected on a constituency basis and 20 on a list system. It is interesting to note that the candidates on the list do not have a particular role to play in the election campaign. At the first such election we wondered what to do with the list candidates. We had to find a role for them. The role for constituency candidates is clear: they work in their own constituency with their own party to get elected. There is little specific campaigning for the list candidates. There is no clearly defined role for them, whereas the first-post-the-post system clearly defines the candidate to a constituency. The electorate can identify who they are voting for. The list gives the elector the opportunity of voting for a political party on a closed list, with the ranking order determined by the party, sometimes with the involvement of local party members.
	I give an example from the Welsh Assembly elections that in Wales we call the Clwyd West question. The four main parties fielded candidates for that constituency. Labour won the seat. The three failed candidates still got elected as they were on their parties' lists. They turned up at the Welsh Assembly at the first meeting. That totally confused the electorate, as they believed that they had voted not for the other three candidates but for the Labour candidate. Is that a good form of democracy? My noble friend talked about the Martians, but what would the Martians make of a situation in which the electorate voted for one candidate but three other failed candidates still got elected?
	As has been said today, some people say that one of the merits of a PR system is that it would be a way of getting more women elected. That has not been the case in Wales or in Scotland or in the European elections. For example, in Scotland out of 51 women elected to the Scottish Parliament 30 were elected in the constituency section out of 73, and 21 were elected out of 56 on the list system. In Wales, 22 were elected in the constituencies out of 40 and eight on the list system out of 20. In the European elections, in the UK, 19 women were elected out of 78.
	Some who advocate a form of PR say that it is a good way to increase the number of women being elected. Women are elected when political parties use methods such as all-women shortlists or twinning, as used by the Labour Party. Those methods get results for women. The only way that women can succeed in getting election in any form of PR is when their party places them high on the list in seats that the party will win or has a good chance of winning. Therefore, I do not believe that any form of PR is bringing democracy to women by getting more women elected. The first-past-the-post system is more likely to do that, provided political parties ensure that women get selected in seats that the relevant party has a good chance of winning.
	Political parties provide a great service to the democracy our country. In my experience, the involvement of party members and supporters plays a vital role in informing the electorate. Election campaigning, as those who have been involved in it will know, is never-ending. We have just finished one election, and my party is already preparing for the next round of elections in two years' time for the Welsh Assembly.
	Election campaigning is at its most effective in general elections; commitment is at its greatest. Local government elections also provide a high level of involvement of party members. Those two elections are fought on the first-past-the-post system. They are much more exciting; more interest is created for the elector; and party members are more likely to take part in campaigning because they have been actively involved in selecting their candidates and in all the preparatory work such as raising funds, agreeing on the type of election materials and planning the day-to-day campaign. They have ownership of their local campaign and feel pride when their candidate gets elected or despair when they lose. The successful candidate has a sense of pride in and duty to their constituency. The electors can rightly feel that they can expect their elected MP or councillor to work on their behalf. That is what democracy is all about. First-past-the-post is not perfect. It has flaws, but it is the best of all the different voting systems that we use in the UK. It produces strong government, rather than coalition or compromise. The electorate understand that they are electing a government.
	We need to examine ways to encourage more people to participate in elections and by implication change the share of the vote among the parties. Changing the method of voting is not the answer. Where changes have been made, there is no evidence to show greater enthusiasm to vote in greater numbers. We should have a method of voting that makes it easy for people to vote. We know that there have been a lot of experiments with that. We may tinker around the edges, but we should not lose the valuable elements of the first-past-the-post system with the direct involvement of the electors.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on initiating this timely debate. I follow other noble Lords also in saying that his brilliant introduction will have reduced our speeches somewhat as we do not have to number-crunch—it has been done for us. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that Blaenau Gwent rather disproves the point that she was making about all-women lists in strong seats, but I resist the opportunity to take that further.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, the affront to the public's choice as a result of the election—which was the least proportional in living history—has been commendably addressed by the Independent, which has launched a sustained public campaign for a fairer voting system. Already in the Times, Mr Peter Riddell, its political editor, has stated the case for a re-examination of the present system, while his colleague, Mr Matthew Parris, has expressed his opposition to that. Those are all signs that a serious public debate is getting underway, and your Lordships' debate today is another manifestation of that.
	The debate will be greatly assisted by an imminent publication by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics. He is the UK's foremost expert on elections and their outcomes, and he has analysed how different the results would have been under different systems such as STV, the alternative vote and "top up" systems. He has been an adviser to the Jenkins Commission on voting and the Wakeham Commission on Lords reform, among many others; there is no doubting his academic credentials.
	In a forthcoming article for Parliamentary Affairs entitled "Facing up to Multi-Party Politics", he offers a completely new interpretation of the changing inter-relations between electoral behaviour and voting systems in the UK as they have been evolving in recent times. He effectively demolishes the tired conventional wisdom that has lazily been employed by academic and media commentators alike and, not least for self-serving purposes, by politicians from the two larger parties. That prevailing paradigm takes it as axiomatic that the two-party system is the essential characteristic of British politics. It is an outlook that dismisses the outcomes of by-elections that upset expectations; all other political parties apart from Labour and the Tories as minor distractions; and the rise of new parties as being simply ephemeral. According to this view, what happens at general elections is all that really matters. That may well have been valid for the three decades after 1945, but it now no longer fits the facts of contemporary political life.
	After an exhaustive examination, almost all of which was done before the election in May, Professor Dunleavy convincingly demonstrates that a two-party system per se no longer obtains. He writes:
	"In every region of the country, modern British party systems now involve at least six or seven parties with significant vote share at one election or another, a potential for legislative representation at some level, office capabilities and endurance over time, and distinctive ideological positions which are not encompassed by Labour versus Conservative differences. Whenever voters exercise their choices in proportional systems of voting they assign significant support to at least six or seven parties".
	It is clear that electors welcome the rise of a multi-party system along with a proportional voting system in which they can, and do, frequently split their votes between parties. That quite evidently occurs when elections are held simultaneously as in 2003, when local and EU elections were held on the same day and recently when elections to Westminster and county council seats coincided. Of course it also occurs over time, when electors vote "tactically" and switch from their previous voting loyalties. That kind of behaviour worked against the interest of the Conservatives at the 1997 and 2001 elections.
	The new situation has arisen since the introduction of proportional systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and for some mayoral contests. Professor Dunleavy suggests, and I quote him again:
	"Under the current 'co-existence' of PR and plurality rule voting systems, the outcomes of PR elections have already exerted an important influence on the development of 'major' party politics".
	He predicts, moreover, that the UK is in a transitional state that will inexorably lead to all elections, including those for Westminster, being on a proportional basis. In that he anticipated the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when he spoke on the Queen's Speech and warned of "sleepwalking" into all-out proportionality. Neither Professor Dunleavy nor I share the forebodings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—quite the reverse—but it is good to have his support in the analysis of the trends.
	Professor Dunleavy cites the findings of Dr Josep Colomer who, using comparative data, shows that popular demand will force political leaders to concede proportional elections, albeit reluctantly. That may well come about, and I quote Professor Dunleavy for the last time,
	"if the fragmentation of alignments persists then the risk of the incumbents losing elections catastrophically will grow".
	The present simple plurality system cannot be sustained; popular alienation with it is clear. Modern electoral methods that focus on targeting the relatively small numbers of swing voters in marginal constituencies are the logical consequence of first past the post. Such methods, by definition, exclude the vast majority of the electorate from having any effective influence on events. As a consequence, there are an awful lot of wasted votes, and that cannot be good for democracy.
	The POWER inquiry, headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and Mr Ferdinand Mount, commissioned a poll of non-voters at the recent election held on 5 May to elicit their reasons for not voting. The results are instructive and overturn the stereotype explanation that it is all down to apathy. When asked why they did not vote, 36 per cent gave political reasons as against 19 per cent who admitted to being apathetic. The main reason given for abstaining was a lack of trust in politicians and what they say, and a lack of significant difference between the parties' programmes. A significant finding was that more than 90 per cent of non-voters identified three or more political issues that "really mattered" to them, despite the fact that 66 per cent declared themselves as disinterested in politics. That suggests that many non-voters do not connect the issues that concern them to parliamentary politics, which presents a challenge to political parties.
	When asked what would encourage non-voters to vote, 72 per cent said they would participate in referendums—that is interesting—and other participatory devices such as meetings with local councillors to help to set municipal budgets. Much needs to be done to re-engage the people with Parliament, and that will require a broad spectrum of remedies. One of those will be the introduction of a fairer voting system for Westminster. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the Foreign Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister may try to resist it, but it will come and they will be forced to yield to public opinion.
	I shall return to the position adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and most of his fellow Conservatives, with notable exceptions such as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, whom we all miss during his absence from the House. I find it inconceivable that the Tories will not come to realise that PR is in their best interests. Were it not for the top-up provisions in Scotland and Wales, they would virtually have ceased to exist in those regions. They were flatlining at around 30 per cent before 1997—as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said—so it looks very unlikely that they will gain office in the foreseeable future without PR. Whether they come round to support PR for Westminster or not, they will nevertheless benefit when public demand is acceded to. It will be the electors, not the elected, who will enforce the change to a fair voting system.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for introducing this debate and for giving us such a strong start. Perhaps I may air a thought following the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. Before we are much older, we might, from time to time, see something in the other place that looks quite like a hung Parliament.
	Following—amateurishly, I fear—in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, I recall that over the past 85 years Prime Ministers have been members of one of two parties. Yet, crunching one last number, in this election those two parties, added together, received only 45 per cent of the available votes. What happened expresses in some sense the will of the people and they have declared a form of stalemate, although of course the Government will do their best to show that that is not so.
	In part explanation of the low vote in the election, it may well be that the electorate has two characteristics which do not immediately spring to mind. First, many people—perhaps the great majority—have a disenchanted view of those who, for lack of a better description, we may call in charge for the time being. The more distant the people, the greater the disenchantment.
	Secondly, people, as they consider how or whether to vote, may well have a significantly more mature sense of what is happening in their world than is often thought. The Greeks would have called it nous.
	Those two characteristics—disenchantment and good sense—are related. Both have been much enhanced during the 85 years by rising prosperity, by the arrival of universal suffrage following World War I and, indeed, by that war itself. As we move on through the Second World War with the National Government, we come to 1945 and the rejection of Churchill. The collective memory of the electorate called for a change in direction.
	As a more personal illustration of disenchantment and good sense, I would recall a steel foundry in 1956. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was our Member of Parliament. Whether it was the Suez crisis or just mundanely my interpretation of the order book, the foundry men would look at me with sympathy—they did not doubt best intentions—and say, "Well enough, but it will be different—things always are". They were not to be shaken from their opinion.
	They did not want to tell the politicians what to do next; it was just that matters could not be expected to go as planned. Errors would be made and be criticised with no hard feelings because that was what life was like.
	We have moved on, but only, I believe, to reinforce the views of 1956; we have not seen a change in the ground rules. All will—still—not work out as it is planned and presented to us at election time. As a consequence, I believe that many, perhaps most, of the people who did not vote in May know why they did not vote. Their good sense and disenchantment will have played a part. Those who did not vote Labour or Conservative also know why. There was not some random disengagement from the political process which could be corrected by making voting easier—if that is what postal votes do.
	What can be done to re-engage the electorate to achieve, say, an 80 per cent turnout? First, a much more open discussion is needed about the limitations to the political power which can be effectively exercised by government. Alongside that it would be helpful if Ministers exercised restraint over repeated claims to have achieved advances which in reality have resulted from forces much wider than those controlled by government.
	Secondly, we need to decentralise in order to take locally as may decisions as possible. There is no substitute for peer group pressure. That would require that we turn the well known phrase "No taxation without representation" on its head so that it becomes "No true representation without taxation". The duty to raise revenue and to stand for election and re-election ensures a good measure of accountability.
	This need to revitalise our democracy at both national and local level is urgent. I hope that this debate is one contribution to the way forward.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for obtaining, with the help of the ballot, a debate on this highly important and topical subject, and for introducing it so powerfully.
	I am in general agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and I certainly agree with the speeches of my noble friends, except that, as I shall explain later, I am not quite as enthusiastic as my noble friend Lord Greaves is about STV as a system for Westminster. I should add that I am quite happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, for whom I have the greatest respect, will be answering the debate for the government today.
	We have a plethora of electoral systems in the United Kingdom. In addition to first past the post, we have STV for elections in Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and the Assembly. We have a closed party list system in regional constituencies for European elections in Great Britain. We have top-up Members for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the GLA and we have the supplementary vote for the election of the London Mayor.
	Those alternatives to FPTP have now been in use for several years. None of them has caused significant difficulties for voters or deterred voters from voting. Of course, none of those systems is perfect. That is certainly true of FPTP. All have flaws, as do other systems that are not used in this country, such as the alternative vote.
	We must ask how serious are the flaws of FPTP, and whether there is a better alternative. I do not want to spend much time on the respective merits of the different alternatives to FPTP. We have to start from where we are, although I accept that there is clearly strong public support for the principle that each constituency should have its own individual Member in the House of Commons. That suggests that if FPTP is to be replaced for the House of Commons, the most acceptable alternative may be the top-up system used for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, or the broadly similar system, described as AV plus that was recommended by the Jenkins's Committee in 1998.
	When we get elections to your Lordships' House, we shall of course start from a clean sheet, and there will be strong arguments for STV or an open-list system.
	The chief advantage of FPTP in the eyes of its supporters, such as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is that it produces single party governments. Why is that an advantage? Weak governments are bad governments, but FPTP can and does produce weak governments, as it did for the Labour governments from 1974 to 1979 and the 1992-97 Conservative government.
	Equally, coalition governments in other countries have shown that they can be strong. Since the restoration of democracy to West Germany in 1949, it and its successor, Germany, have had coalition governments for all but four years. Until the mishandling of reunification in 1991, it had one of the most stable and effective governments in the world.
	Even worse than a weak government is a strong government who abuse their powers, as the Thatcher government did when they introduced the poll tax, as my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart said. FPTP makes that result much more likely.
	We now have a unique situation. A party has been elected to government with a comfortable working majority that has just over 35 per cent of the vote. The two main opposition parties between them got over 55 per cent of the vote. What kind of mandate is that? Are the Government saying that they have a mandate to force on the people of this country measures that have been rejected by both opposition parties? If they have a mandate, something is utterly wrong with our electoral system.
	I am not saying that you cannot have a single party government unless that party wins more than 50 per cent of the vote. No government since 1935 have achieved that result. But once you get below about 40 per cent of the vote by the winning party, doubts about the legitimacy of single-party government become serious.
	Until the recent election that had happened only twice since 1945. In the two elections in 1974, Labour took office first with 37 per cent of the vote—in fact, on a smaller share than the Conservatives had in that election—and in the second election with 39 per cent of the vote. Those elections introduced one of the worst governments since the Second World War, alleviated only by the Lib-Lab pact, which created a quasi-coalition from 1976 to 1978.
	Now we have a government elected with an even smaller share of the vote than the Labour Party had in 1974. What we need, and what we have not got, is a House of Commons that bears some real similarity to the wishes of the voters. FPTP utterly fails to do that. By contrast, AV plus, the system recommended by the Jenkins commission, would have achieved that result. It would have given the Labour Party a working, but smaller, majority in 1997 and 2001. The sort of landslide that we had in those years is undesirable in the interests of this country. We remember what the noble Lord, Lord Pym, said—I think concerning the 1983 election—about landslides. He was absolutely right, although the noble Baroness, his Prime Minister, did not agree with him.
	AV plus would not have given the Conservatives a majority in 1992 or Labour a majority in this year's election. AV plus, or other systems of PR, would have produced results that on all four occasions—1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005—would have been better for this country than the actual results. FPTP is simply unable to cope with the three-party politics that we have had in this country since at least 1974, still less the four-party politics in Scotland and Wales. In 1974 and 1992, it created single-party governments. In 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001, it gave huge majorities to parties whose share of the vote was in the low 40s. This year, it has given a working majority to a party with 35 per cent of the vote, and far less than that of the total electorate.
	None of those results can be justified. They are blots on our democracy. We have available alternative systems that would have prevented them all. It is time that we got on with reform. Our voters deserve no less.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to the debate. I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for raising such important issues. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who cannot be here, that this was a classic example of a debate in which one might put on one's anorak. Indeed, he promised me that, were he to appear, he might wear such a garment. I, of course, do not possess one. My view is that we have been privileged with much expertise.
	These are important fundamental issues of democracy, and I know that all noble Lords who have spoken take them extremely seriously and have a variety of backgrounds, knowledge and expertise. We would need a day-long seminar on the issue; there is not enough time to address it in your Lordships' House, given the level of expertise. I recognise immediately that I shall not do credit to all the speeches made.
	I declare an interest: he is called my husband. He sat on the independent commission on PR and is chairman of YouGov. In some ways, I would prefer him to respond to the debate; so would he. Some of the conversations—dare I say, rows—in my house this week about how I might approach this would be worthy of the telling, but perhaps not at the Dispatch Box.
	I will try to address the specific questions raised, not least those of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who gave notice of his points. I shall respond to him at the end. We have touched on a range of subjects from political engagement to voting, particularly postal voting, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and others. It is a subject in itself. I shall not dwell on it today, but I take seriously the points raised. Other issues raised include the Boundary Commission, on which I shall say more; the rules on what happens when somebody dies, which I shall touch on later; and the possibility of change. A range of views were expressed on the different voting systems; I shall try to deal with those mentioned.
	I believe firmly in the legitimacy of the election process that we have gone through. We are a duly elected, legitimate Government: we won. The turnout was up by around 2 per cent on the previous election; we have a working majority. Of the previous 17 elections, only seven have given a government a higher majority. It is very important that Parliament sends out the message that we recognise that we have a Government.
	I shall start from a philosophical point, looking at what general elections are for. There are three key functions: first, to choose an executive; secondly, to choose a legislature that represents the full range of political views; thirdly, to choose a legislature that represents different localities. For some people, there is a fourth legitimate concern: keeping out what one might describe as extremists.
	The core problem in this country and in electoral systems generally is that no single electoral system fully achieves all those objectives; therefore, some kind of compromise is needed, depending on which of the issues that I raised one values most. For example, first-past-the-post and the alternative vote (AV) achieve the choosing of an executive and a legislature that represents different localities, but they are not as good at achieving the second objective of representing the full range of political views. PR systems can achieve that second objective, but they are not as good at achieving the first or third. If you take the view that keeping out extremists is important, the alternative vote is the best way of doing so.
	Noble Lords talked about how PR systems could be designed, in a sense, to support the extreme elements—they referred to Israel, which has the purest PR system—or to hinder them. Any extremist party with more than a tiny amount of support is likely to gain a toehold under some form of proportional representation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, talked about the variety of voting systems that already existed in this country. As our priorities vary from institution to institution, our choice of electoral system could also vary. The preference for a clear decision on which party or person should form the executive might matter more when choosing a national government than when choosing, for example, a regional assembly or local council. In that case, one might advocate PR for London, Scotland and Wales but perhaps not for Westminster.
	There are various options, but when looking for a system it is important to start by asking what we seek fundamentally to achieve. Unsurprisingly, noble Lords talked a lot about the first-past-the-post system. My noble friend Lady Gale, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, talked about it in more glowing terms than others. Many regard it as unfair, but it depends on what we mean by "unfair". Of course it is unfair to smaller parties with geographically dispersed support. Interestingly, it is not unfair to minority parties with concentrated support, so the Welsh nationalist and Ulster parties do not suffer in the same way from first-past-the-post.
	There are other kinds of fairness: to localities, as single-member seats are incompatible with proportional representation; to social groups defined by gender or ethnicity; and to very small parties, because under most systems of proportional representation parties must cross either an explicit threshold, normally of around 5 per cent, or an implicit threshold before they can achieve representation. For example, it is very hard to win seats under STV with much under 15 per cent support in any given area. So, if we are concerned about fairness to minorities, why should fairness apply to fairly small but not very small parties? The question can also be considered important by those who want a government that can be held to account on manifesto pledges. It is impossible to do that under PR coalitions.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Scottish Parliament is a good example of an exception to what I have just said. I think that the noble Lord would agree that, throughout Europe in particular, when a coalition is formed post-election, it is difficult to translate what can be serious differences in manifesto commitments into something on which we can honestly say that the country has voted. I think that my point still stands, although I take the point that Scotland is proving to be a good example that we must consider carefully.
	It is also interesting that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that each election since the Second World War has produced a government that more people have preferred. I will come back to that point. That is the philosophical standpoint from where I begin. We have to be very clear about what we wish to achieve and which of the priorities that I have outlined come at the top of our list.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, talked about the Boundary Commission in particular, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, talked about the time-lag between the recommendations, which I recognise as an important issue. Noble Lords know that the reviews by statute have to be between eight and 12 years. I take the point about mobility of population.
	Your Lordships will also know about the commissions transfer to the Electoral Commission as soon as they have done their work by way of the 2000 Act, which is important in terms of the Electoral Commission picking up what happens. I will feed into their work what noble Lords have said about looking carefully at the issues relating to the difference in time, although it is important to get certainty—as noble Lords know, changing boundaries is not a simple process—and also make sure that that point is recognised as important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, spoke about, I think, two reports from the Electoral Commission, including Voting for Change. I hope to receive a note saying more about when the legislation is coming in specifically so as to address the point raised by the noble Baroness. As the noble Lord will know, we have published responses to Voting for Change. We are looking carefully, of course, at Securing the Vote, which is very important.
	Obviously, it is important to continue to offer electors a choice of ways in which they cast their vote. I accept fully what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about the importance of secrecy of the ballot box. But, as noble Lords have heard me say many times, I am also concerned to offer a variety of means for people to be able to express their vote.
	I recognise that disabled people and people with young children—and for many other reasons—may not be able to go out and express their votes in the traditional way, if I can call it that. We need to think carefully about how to do that safely and securely, and give people absolute confidence. The critical thing about Securing the Vote is that the commission says that we need to command public confidence. I could not agree more. That brings us back to postal voting. As of this morning, no petitions have been received on this election, but that does not mean that I am complacent. We need to think this issue through very carefully, which we have already indicated that we will do.
	I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for his immense work, not least that which he has done with my right honourable friend Mr Cook. Before I came today, I looked at the constitutional reform agenda agreed by the Joint Consultative Committee in March 1997. I was pleased to see how much we have done. I am sure that the noble Lord will indicate what we have not done, but I was pleased to see how much progress has been made on the work that the noble Lord undertook.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we stand by the commitment in the 1997 manifesto. If one looks at the 2001 and 2005 manifestos, we are very clear about that. I hope to address that issue. I was merely trying to pay tribute to the list of particular concerns that were raised, not least freedom of information and so on, and to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord did and continues to pursue, which is very important.
	As the noble Lord would expect, I disagree with his analysis, not least on the question of Iraq. It is very important that it was the first time that there was a substantive government Motion debated in another place and that that was voted on. I will return to the issue of people being switched off by the British process, which has a bearing on the kind of electoral system that one uses. Some of the evidence coming out of the GLA elections indicates that the elderly, who are the most likely to vote, find it quite difficult and confusing. A number of mosques reported high levels of people asking for explanations because of language challenges and not being able to understand quite what was happening. It is important that we look at all of those factors.
	We also know that in polls asking essentially whether people agreed that Labour has an overall majority because it won more seats, the NOP poll gave a figure of 57 per cent and the YouGov poll gave 52 per cent. There is already evidence to suggest that people recognise the outcome and accept that it was right, which is also important.
	I would like to pay tribute at length, but I do not have time, to my noble friend Lady Gale for her incredible work. She is the only woman, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and I, who has spoken in this debate voluntarily—if I might put it that way. I pay tribute to all of her work, particularly that in support of the Welsh Labour Party, her work on elections and also, of course, her work for women.
	In the Commons in 2005, 19.8 per cent of Members are women. That is the highest percentage, but it is going up very slowly. There is a considerable way to go to get to where I would like it to be. Minority representation is at 2.3 per cent, which compares with 7.9 per cent of the population. We still have work to do to make sure that we have correct representation, but I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work on that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, referred to the independent Power Inquiry, chaired by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, which is very important. I hope to do a final report later this year. The inquiry has had eminent speakers, including my right honourable friend Robin Cook and the right honourable Michael Howard. Without pre-empting the report, which I have not seen, I think that it will say that there should be a combination of the importance of making sure that we have direct and wider debate and engagement by government and more participative decision-making, which I think that noble Lords would support, as well as putting PR in that context. I look forward to seeing the report.
	The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, specifically asked what would have happened on the death of a candidate in Glasgow Springburn, which is the Speaker's constituency. I am told that there would not be any major implications—Heaven forefend that it should happen!—and that another Speaker would be elected in another place. There would be a by-election as usual. I will not go into more detail of the noble Lord's speech, which I found extremely interesting, not least because I have addressed the issue of first past the post.
	I had a wonderful image of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, surrounded by angels. I was a little alarmed that he had sent away people who had come to him for advice and support. I do not really believe that the noble Lord would do that: he would take up their cases and would be very vigorous in so doing. Under our system, it is important that when MPs are elected two things should happen. First, the electorate should recognise that they are the elected MPs, that they should turn to them, and that that is the responsibility of MPs. Secondly, MPs should make sure that they represent their constituents and not just their party or the constituents who voted for them. Noble Lords who were Members of another place will be exemplars of the long tradition where MPs have done and sought to do precisely that. It is very important that that is seen to happen, because that is also a fundamental part of democracy.
	I was very interested in what the noble Lord said about STV. I noted that not all noble Lords on his Benches would agree with him. The noble Lord knows well the advantages in giving people the choice of which candidates are elected on a personal as well as a party basis. It offers a choice of proportionality and has a retention of geographic link. We can see from Northern Ireland that the disadvantages can be candidates who fight each other and will fight rivals within their own party. Politicians have told me that that can lead to highly parochial political campaigning. It is at the cost of campaigning on national issues if it becomes very parochial. That would have to be taken into account.
	I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale for addressing the comments of two Liberal Democrat MPs and I am extremely grateful for the noble Lords who have supported my junior status as being appropriate. I may not have the rank, but I hope that I speak with the authority. That is all that I would say to that.
	My noble friend made some very interesting comments about the European parliamentary elections and the regional list system of PR. I had hoped that we would have a conversation about the d'Hondt system because I have with me everything there is to know about it, including who he was. All I can say is that he had to be a professor of mathematics, did he not? My noble friend sought to highlight the difficulty of breaking the link with the constituent. The system has advantages, given that elected MEPs are not left to deal on their own with the needs of up to 700,000 constituents, but there is always a question about the link between the constituent and his representative.
	The noble Lord, Lord Garden, again raised very important issues regarding the Armed Forces. I was much taken with his argument that as servicemen and women were in the vanguard for postal voting, perhaps they could form the vanguard of the next wave of new voting systems. Clearly, we have to pick up these issues properly. I am not in a position to do that now, but I will make a commitment to arranging a meeting between officials and the noble Lord to ensure that they are pushed forward both within my own department and the Ministry of Defence.
	The noble Lord also pointed out that Commonwealth citizens are no longer able to use the proxy vote as they might not have any family in the UK. I am told that that is not right, but I shall write to the noble Lord with a full answer.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord has pre-empted exactly what I was going to say. I am conscious that the noble Lord pointed out that the much-missed Lord Jenkins sought to establish a system that would achieve both of the aims we are looking for. However, it is a complex system and Lord Jenkins was the first to say that it would take a long time to set up, given its complexity. That is one of its difficulties.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about the importance of vision and accept absolutely that all parties have a real responsibility to think about vision and engagement. I was asked when legislation is to be brought forward. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me say, as soon as parliamentary time allows. I do not know at this point where we are on the legislation since I do not have policy responsibility for it. However, I shall let the Baroness know.
	Briefly—I am going over my time only because I have been interrupted; I hope that noble Lords will allow me to do so—I want to deal with the specific question put to me by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. He asked me what the Government's review will do next. We have an internal piece of work under way which will feed into a new ministerial committee on constitutional affairs, the composition and terms of reference of which we have ensured were made available on the website this morning. Again, for the record, its terms of reference are to co-ordinate the Government's policy on electoral issues and the democratic process, and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The sub-committee is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and has serving on it a range of representatives from different parts of government. A copy of the members will be placed in the Library and I shall send one to my noble friend. Also, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to a piece of work being undertaken by officials to bring together all the information we need so that it can be fed into the committee.
	My noble friend also asked about the words of my noble and learned friend about the groundswell for change. I went back to check this and found that the most extensive study of public opinion undertaken was conducted in 2003 for the Independent Commission on PR. In its conclusions it found that surveys revealed that attitudes were highly dependent on the way the question was asked. On the whole, electoral systems are not something on which most people have definite views. Respondents were shown examples of different ballot papers, first past the post, party lists and so forth, and asked to rank them. First past the post got 41 per cent, AMS 29 per cent and party list 25 per cent. So there is a majority preference for PR, but if people are asked about a second-choice run-off, first past the post secured a clear majority. When my noble and learned friend referred to that, he was quoting from the latest detailed research that has been undertaken. Again I declare an interest in that my husband served on that committee and that YouGov commissioned the poll. However, my husband did not deal with it. So I do not think that my noble and learned friend was incorrect when he described it in those terms.
	My noble friend also asked about how people will become involved in and consulted on this exercise. I do not yet have an answer because the new ministerial sub-committee has not yet met. I am not able to pre-empt its deliberations. We have indicated that a referendum would be the way forward and we remain absolutely 100 per cent committed to that.
	I conclude by saying that democracy is probably the most precious thing we have. The prerequisites for change are that we have to understand through serious analysis exactly what we are seeking to do. I tried to outline at the beginning of my remarks where the objectives might lie. We need absolute clarity of purpose and outcome for the system; that is, what would be achieved by change, and what would not. The system has to be understandable and should command a high level of support because the watchword for this, more than anything else, will be public confidence in what we are doing. Each of the systems that have been put forward and those currently in use present different challenges, result in different outcomes, and offer us different things. So having a coherent vision is crucially important. While I know that some noble Lords are impatient, and I can understand why, this is something we must get right.
	I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate.

Baroness Hooper: rose to call attention to recent developments in Latin America; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I was pleased to hear the very good news last Thursday that I had been successful in the ballot for this debate on developments in Latin America. Having waited patiently for all of last year for my luck to change, I was not prepared to say no when my chance came. Nevertheless, with the State Opening having taken place only last week and the break-up for the Whitsun Recess being today, time has been short, which has meant that a number of people who could have made significant contributions have sent me their apologies instead.
	I shall name but a few: my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, the former Foreign Secretary, who always speaks with knowledge and authority; the noble Lord, Lord Levy, the Prime Minister's special envoy to Latin America; the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who is even now speaking at a seminar in Madrid on this very subject as a vice-president of Canning House; and my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashcroft, who have considerable first-hand knowledge of Cuba in particular. In spite of the short notice, I am absolutely delighted that your Lordships' House has not failed to produce a list of distinguished speakers and I am most grateful to all of them.
	Today is also the first day on which we have our major timed debates at the end of the week's Business rather than on a Wednesday afternoon. Perhaps it is appropriate that a debate on the New World should be the one to test these new procedures. We shall be testing also our new Foreign Office Minister in the Lords. The bright spot in all this is that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, as the Minister who is now responsible for Latin American relations, will be able to let us know his initial reactions and underline his priorities. I am most grateful to him for deciding to forgo attending the EU-Rio Group meeting in Luxembourg, important as that is, in order to respond to this debate in your Lordships' House.
	I have spoken previously, on numerous occasions, about Latin America as a regional power and in relation to individual countries. I do so again because I consider Latin America to be a vitally important part of the world. Not only is it important for us on a bilateral trade basis, but it is emerging as a global player in world trade and world institutional terms.
	The main object of today's debate is to ensure that the United Kingdom is aware of this fact at a political level, even if the region is no longer on the Foreign Office's priority list. As long as I remain in a position to do so, further reforms of the House of Lords permitting, I shall continue to remind Her Majesty's Government—of whatever political complexion—of these facts if they fail to take them into account.
	Perhaps I may digress with a more a general comment on how disappointed I was during the recent general election campaign that barely a mention of the United Kingdom's international role in the world was made by any of the political parties, other than with reference to Iraq and, now and again, to the European Union. I fear that we are becoming a very inward-looking country; that is, with the exception of the world of sport and football in particular.
	However, if we are still a trading nation, we must focus on our best-possible trading partners and the ones we know best. To omit the Latin American countries would be a grave mistake. Even if self-interest is not at stake, one of the consequences of globalisation is that we must learn to work with other countries in a variety of ways. So it is not just about trade, but about peacekeeping, about the fight against terrorism, the fight against drugs and so on. To seek out new friends only to neglect old ones does not really get us anywhere.
	I intend therefore to attempt to provide an overview of the region; to consider the implications of some recent developments; and then, if time permits, to touch on some issues that highlight the part played by Latin American countries in the global economy and global institutions. I feel confident that other speakers today, from their individual experiences and points of view, will add flavour and seasoning to the debate.
	I am aware of the danger of generalising, even I inevitably regionalise. I do not forget that the 19 countries of Latin America, from Mexico in the north, through the Central American countries—not forgetting Cuba and the Dominican Republic—and down to Tierra del Fuego at the southernmost tip of Patagonia, are each very distinctive and sovereign nations.
	However, together, they comprise one quarter of the world's population. They represent one third of the United Nations and they have six members on the UN Security Council. They also contain two of the most populated cities in the world—Mexico City at around 22 million people and Sao Paolo at around 19 million people. Brazil, Mexico and Chile are stars, in economic and many other ways, in anyone's terms.
	The region has vast natural resources: oil and gas; water; precious stones and metals; human resources; and the agricultural products which form so much of the region's trade.
	When I first went to Latin America as a post-graduate law student in Ecuador in the mid-1960s, military rule and populist economic polices had created instability and closed economies throughout the region. People used to joke that a golpe or coup d'état was a cheaper way of changing the government than holding a general election. What they would have thought of our debate on electoral reform a little earlier, I am not quite sure. At that time, oil wealth was only just on the horizon, and Venezuela, with its vast resources of oil as well as of water, gold and other commodities, was a rising star. Since that time, I have been to the region on many occasions as a Minister. I was not a Foreign Office Minister; I went as a health Minister. I have led trade missions there, and, as president of Canning House, I have organised, and spoken at, conferences throughout the region. I have also gone to the region for holidays to enjoy the wonders of the environment that Latin America offers such as Iguassu—the waterfalls between Argentina and Brazil—and the Galapagos Islands, not to mention the beauties of Latin America's cultural heritage.
	Since that time, of course, things have changed. All Latin American countries now have democratically elected governments, most with strong presidencies, and there is undoubtedly more openness, transparency and freedom of expression, which in turn give rise to more accountability, if only through the media. Although, as in many parts of the world, confidence in institutions and the political class has fallen during the past decade, that is a result of economic underperformance, falling living standards and the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. That has been the cause, for example, of the recent problems in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela.
	In this context, the role of parliamentarians is very important. I wish to endorse the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in particular the United Kingdom branch, in welcoming delegations from Latin America and sending UK delegations out to enable exchanges of views and to explain different ways of doing things so that we understand each other. But the parliamentary role—or the congressional role—in many countries of Latin America is not as good as it should be. However, we look forward to the coming elections in Argentina, which are due to take place in October.
	On the trade front, the region remains heavily dependent on primary commodity exports, which leave it vulnerable to fluctuation in the terms of trade. As far as foreign trade goes, however, the region has become much more open in the past decade, with exports rising from 15 per cent of GDP in the first half of the 1990s to more than 20 per cent since 2000.
	The United States is the most important trading partner for Latin American countries. Proximity and communications are factors, although trade diversification has increased.
	China is the current phenomenon; it is becoming an increasingly important market for the region's metal and soya producers. I hope to be able to return to the subject of China, as it is also involved in much direct investment in Latin America and is entering into trade agreements.
	In the context of foreign trade, Mexico shines out because it accounts for around 50 per cent of the regional trade. At the same time, as part of all these changes, we have seen the rise of trade blocs such as Mercosur for the southern cone countries, the Andean Community for the mountainous regions of the south-west and the NAFTA agreement between Mexico and the other North American countries. We have also seen bilateral and multilateral agreements with the European Union and other international bodies and there are moves towards a free trade area of the Americas.
	The trade situation looks good. In terms of growth forecasts, the OECD considers that Latin America has increased its growth above world levels, having enjoyed a few years of very robust export performance and improved terms of trade, against an OECD prediction of world growth that is revised to 2.9 per cent for this year. Brazil, for example, which grew by 4.5 per cent in 2004, is likely to grow by 3.5 per cent for this year. Indeed, Brazil has been the beneficiary of one of three country-specific OECD programmes, the others being China and Russia, and this has been highly successful. It looks very probable that Brazil will follow Mexico as a full member of the OECD.
	I recognise that there is much more that I could and perhaps should say, but time does not permit. I also recognise that this is not just a government issue. We are fortunate in this country to have institutions such as bilateral chambers of commerce, cultural societies and Canning House, the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council. We also have the Economist Intelligence Unit, to which I am most grateful for some of my facts, and which provides a wonderfully comprehensive service. I refer also to the Institute for the Study of the Americas and, of course, the excellent group of Latin American ambassadors and our representatives in the region. Although diminishing in number, they are first class in quality.
	As a former president of Canning House, I should like to refer to just a few of the programmes, seminars and information services that it has provided in the past few months. There was a conference on the opportunities in PPP in Mexico and one called "The Dominican Republic: Opportunities for Foreign Direct Investment". There was a seminar on "Politics & Poverty Reduction: DfID Experiences in Peru"—where, sadly, the programme has been closed down. There are also events covering growth sustainability in Latin America and, most importantly, one in collaboration with the Inter-American Development Bank, called "The Emergence of China: Opportunities and Challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean". That probably is a subject worthy of a completely separate debate, and I look forward to that possibility.
	Apart from the size and potential of these countries for the future and the added reasons why investment in and collaboration with those countries is becoming more reliable, let us not forget in our approach to the so-called modernising of our relations with them the significant historic and traditional links dating back virtually to 1492. In the period of the first Elizabeth, a lot of the booty which was won by her sailors came from the Americas—Latin America, the new world.
	Through George Canning, there was support for the liberation movements in the early part of the 19th century and recognition for the new nation states. In 1853, we were the first country in the world to recognise Paraguay as an independent country, yet one month ago, we closed the embassy there, which in fact operated at negligible cost. We have just celebrated the UK recognition of Colombia's independence 180 years ago. Again, we were the first country to do so. Last week on its Navy Day, the Chilean Navy recognised that Admiral Lord Corcoran was its founder.
	In conclusion, I wish to contend, as forcefully as I can, that a policy of benign neglect in our relations with Latin American countries, which is what I believe we are seeing from the Government through the FCO and the DTI, is wasteful and ignores the facts. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who has secured this debate so early in this Parliament. She has been consistently active both here and through Canning House; she has many bilateral contacts and has fostered good relations with the countries of Latin America. She and I will participate in meetings in August in Paraguay, where we have just closed down our embassy, and Bolivia, following up the important mission from the Bolivians at Westminster last October. I shall return to that later.
	I echo what the noble Baroness said in expressing her appreciation that my noble friend Lord Triesman, in his first outing as Minister for Latin America, is here today in that capacity.
	Latin America is generally thought of as being Uncle Sam's back yard. One never meets Latin Americans who quite like that idea, but, short of getting Costain to move it somewhere else, there is not much they can do about it. The populist strands that are part of the history of many Latin American countries are tinged with a touch of xenophobia based on that unbalanced relationship. It is, for similar reasons, a continent—just as much as Africa and Asia in different ways, but with different points of emphasis—where the need to attract foreign direct investment is complicated by that degree of schizophrenia and is part of the central political debate.
	Where can we see that where there might be some added value in our involvement? It is just as true in Latin America as it is in eastern Europe, central Asia or any other part of the world, that advocacy of democratic principles, both directly and in the pattern set by the European Union, cannot be underestimated. There have been positive developments in Latin America in recent years: far fewer countries are now guilty of showing a lack of respect for human rights. There is more political pluralism, and indigenous groups for many years excluded are in principle more included in the voting lists and so on. But there is still chronic inequality in most parts of the continent.
	The World Bank has just produced a study, saying that the greater political purchase garnered by Indians and other indigenous peoples has not translated yet into an improvement in their lot. I am indebted to the Latin American Weekly Report for that information. That is partly to do with patterns of involvement. We have our own history in the NGOs and trade unions; they have to do their own job in their own way, in their own environment. Trade unionists, operating on the universal principles of the ILO, have said that the privations experienced by people in Colombia—as we sit here today—are almost inconceivable in the 21st century. They include assassinations, torture and all the rest. We salute our comrades in that environment.
	During the Earth summit in Rio in 1992, I was privileged to chair the global meeting of trade unionists concerned with the environment and sustainable development. One cannot underestimate the dilemmas of workers confronted by the reality that logging may be their only possible way of staying alive. The same is true of cocoa growing. What would you say if you were in a group that was told that, in an area that was receiving $500 million a year from cocoa—which of course with a few other chemicals attached soon becomes cocaine—the growing must be closed down, when in effect nothing is there to replace it? That $500 million has just gone. What would you do if you were working in that environment? You would fight pretty hard to keep the cocoa growing.
	The indigenous peoples still find time-lags in their involvement. That is why in Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, there has been little or no reduction in inequality in income distribution. The quality of public services is much lower in indigenous areas; and direct influence over services such as schools is much less. Democracy and equality go together in Latin America, as they do in all parts of the world. That sort of pattern is another thread in the general trend towards populism in much of Latin America and in the appeal of President Chavez in Venezuela.
	The informal or "black" economy is on average 50 per cent in all that territory. What does that mean? There are no rights for workers and, by definition, no framework for law and tax and so on. It is not easy, either, for the development agencies to get to grips with that, as it is all outside the measured economy. So there is often a pattern whereby the political class is seen to be living in a totally different world from the people.
	Of course, that is not a new challenge. I do not know whether the following incident happened when my noble friend Lord Whitty was general secretary of the Labour Party, but our mutual friend Alex Kitson, who was then chairman of the international committee of the Labour Party used to go to visit Fidel Castro every year in Cuba. There they were, sitting on the veranda with the sun setting over the Caribbean, the palm trees waving, and each of them having a couple of drinks. At one point, Alex said to Castro, "Fidel, may I ask you a question?". Fidel said, "Alex, my friend, of course—what is your question?". Alex said, "Fidel, I've been coming here all these years, and you are always sitting here. You offer me a drink, and it is marvellous to see the sunset over the Caribbean. But before now you have always smoked a big cigar, and this year you are smoking a very small one. Is there any reason for that?". "Well spotted, Alex," says Fidel; "I am trying to get closer to the people".
	What is the role of parliamentarians? Where do we fit in? Well, we fit in with difficulty. I say that with some experience of various contexts and of wearing different hats. One thing that I am clear about is the fact that there is no point in just having bland agendas which just say, "We love you, and you love us". That does not get you anywhere, when there are such big gulfs in understanding between the typical British multinational, the typical South American populist politician and their constituencies. Yet, we embrace our friends and comrades as part of the joint parliamentary groupings. Along with my Bolivian opposite number, who is a member of the senate, I am president of the Anglo-Bolivian parliamentary group. It is in that capacity that we are having our meetings in La Paz in August. We hope that we can help knock some heads together, because it is very important that we are able to address specific issues concretely.
	There are other means of contact. Last week, I gave some hospitality to eight Bolivian mayors who came here under the auspices of the Local Government International Bureau. I believe that that was a first from Latin America; it was very commendable. For people like that to go home realising that we do not all have horns and a tail is important in helping to close the gulfs of misunderstanding. When we roll up our sleeves and get involved, we may make mistakes; but as long as people continue to trust our good will and credentials, we have to get stuck in—even by raising questions that are not immediately on the agenda.
	Let us take the question of 50:50 participation equity stakes. There is lateral thinking from Gordon Brown and others about equity participation in housing in this country: what about a bit of lateral thinking about equity stakes in some of the multinational oil operations in Latin America and other parts of the world? After all, no one in Saudi Arabia gets more than 49 per cent from overseas, and that is not thought to be a country worth taking over because it is not a democracy. So we have to be objective about what is needed to get people to feel that we respect their patrimony in a world whose history includes a degree of paranoia about the rape of the preceding generations' minerals and land.
	We are particularly keen, in the light of all that, to be involved in our meetings in La Paz with the British majors—BP, Shell and BG—and we have an agenda for discussion. Although a tough hydrocarbons law has just been adopted in Bolivia, the handling of the implementation stage must be considered. In the past year, the price of oil has gone up to the best part of $50 a barrel, and that cannot fail to affect energy economics. Energy economics are changing rapidly around the world at the moment, not least because of what is happening in Iraq and Iran.
	We must contribute technical expertise in negotiation. You do not just take your ball home. The history of trade unions in this country over the past 200 years is that, if you take your ball home, you have achieved nothing. It is only when you have signed an agreement that states how you are going to operate that you have achieved advances for your members. We must diplomatically get people to appreciate that that means a negotiating technique with governments, the private sector and multinationals, which is quite complicated. It also means that when an agreement is signed, it must be delivered for the duration of that agreement. Bridge building is not assisted by the parties on either side of a bridge sticking gelignite under their end of it and saying that if they do not get what they want the bridge will be blown up. It may be thought to be a friendly prelude to discussion, but it is not the one that I would recommend.
	In my contribution to the Queen's Speech debate a few days ago, I said that I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Triesman had shown an active interest in this matter and was very supportive of the round table approach and of getting down to brass tacks on the issues that divide the parties. Multinationals and British companies have major interests in Bolivian oil and gas, which are that country's major resource. The multinationals, we in Parliament, Whitehall and Ministers all have different responsibilities, but we can keep the agenda going forward if we work together. I am sure that my noble friend will think that I am trying to teach him to suck eggs, but the mission statements of government departments could be more finely honed on the subject of how we fit together. It is not just that somebody has the major responsibility and should be left to get on with it. There are issues of state here, as well as issues for private interests. I look forward to further contact with the Minister before our mission in Bolivia.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend was successful in the ballot because this is an important debate. I am much less delighted that it has been tabled for today. Only for such a good friend would I still be here on the last day before a break.
	My experience in Latin America has come in a number of different ways. I have been on delegations to Cuba, Uruguay, Peru, Guatemala and Nicaragua with the IPU. Some of those trips were fascinating experiences, such as when I went to Nicaragua with the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. Our meal cost 250,000 of whatever the currency was and there was no note bigger than 1,000. The restaurant had to set up a table with two men to count the money before we could say we had paid the bill and depart. The two men were sitting next to a pool with a crocodile in it, and we felt it was very important that our money should be right.
	Inflation was a major issue in Latin America. When I first visited Peru as a private individual, we were advised to pay for dinner by course because prices went up so fast that by the time you finished eating the meal would cost more. There were no stamps. You had to go to the post office to send anything. You joined the queue and the price of postage depended on the time you paid. I believe that Latin America has been through certain blips with its currencies but, on the whole, they are much more stable now and inflation is not at that level.
	The second way that I have visited Latin America is as a tourist travelling for pleasure. I have been to Mexico, Peru and Brazil. I visited Manaus on the Amazon. I am concerned to read about deforestation there, and hope that the Amazon forest remains as the most marvellous forest in the world. A tropical forest of that type takes centuries, perhaps even millions of years, to grow. It cannot be easily replaced. I have also visited Argentina where I saw some of the most beautiful and elegant women in the world in Buenos Aires.
	The third way that I have visited Latin America, and the way that I wish to speak about, is through my position as chairman of Plan International, which is an NGO working in a number of Latin American countries. Through Plan, I have been to Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador and seen the work being done. At one time, Plan had to pull out of Peru. Shining Path was a force there and it became so dangerous that we could not allow people to continue working. That danger is over now, but I am concerned to see people in recent programmes on television saying that they would welcome the return of Shining Path. That alarms me. There was a recent programme in which people in Peru were saying that they were not happy with things as they are and that they felt that the government were not coping. I cannot comment, other than to repeat what I saw on television, but I would like to know what the position is and to be reassured that we are not going to have Shining Path back.
	Until fairly recently, I was the UK chairman of Plan International and I was a member of the international Plan board for 12 years. Plan International is an international humanitarian child-centred development organisation, without religious, political or governmental affiliations. Child sponsorship is the foundation of the organisation and its child-centred community development. It works in partnership with other local organisations and with the participation of local people and communities at all levels. It works with local NGOs. Very often, grants are given—although I do not know whether that happens in Latin America—and the Department for International Development has been very good in supporting Plan.
	As I said, we work with other charities. I particularly remember working in Bolivia with Pro Mujer, which means, "For Women". It is a body that operates a small rotating credit scheme. It is extraordinary how difficult it can be for women, particularly in really poor communities, to get a few dollars to start up a small business for themselves. I saw women who had been given as little as $10 or $20 and who had set up a market stall selling soup. They had made a great success of it. The women are very reliable. They handle the credit union themselves. They pay the money back and when they do so they often lend it to the group so that another woman can be financed. It makes a huge difference to the lives of those people. In microeconomics, NGOs can do a tremendous amount.
	In Peru, I went to see a very small area—I do not know whether you could call it a village or a hamlet—called Rujero. When I visited other places in Peru where we were doing work in health clinics there were mayors, bands and lots of welcome and it was all very impressive. But Rujero was a much smaller place. For the 30 years that it had existed, every drop of water had had to be carried there by hand, or on the back of a donkey. Plan provided the expertise and money to run a pipeline the 30-odd kilometres to the nearest water supply, a natural spring. Right in the middle of the village there was one standpipe for water. It so exciting to the people of the village that the headman had to turn the system off every so often because the children would dance around the tap with glee and turn the water on, delighting that water was there. We believe that all those amenities are there at the turn of a tap, and yet people have had to carry water all that distance for so many years. Again, it was only a small thing, but it had changed the lives of those people. The hours that had been spent going to get water could now be used more productively to prepare food or do other things.
	I thank Lord Montgomery, who was such an expert on South America. Before my first visit to Ecuador, he said, "Do not let them put you on a plane between this place and that place; you must see for yourself what is happening there". I followed his advice, and it was excellent. I went to see Guayaquil, where people had settled in the middle of a swamp. Plan had co-operated to the extent that it was able to build up hardcore areas to walk on between the houses, which were built on stilts in the swamp. When we met the people over lunch, we asked them, "Why have you come to live here?". They answered, "For a better life". How bad must life have been for that to have been a better life? Now, years later, they no longer have a lorry bringing in the water—and they had to keep careful records of every drop anyone got; they now have a laid-on water supply that has turned it into a real village, and now people there do have a better life. Those people chose that way to settle and improve—I understand that it happens fairly often in Ecuador. They have seen the result of the effort and work that they had put in.
	In Canar up in the mountains, I saw people making Panama hats. Everyone imagines Panama hats come from Panama, but they do not; Ecuador is the number one source of Panama hats. People spent days at work and in the end they got hardly anything for all that work. One of the people from Plan Germany went out there and brought a hat back to Germany. A fashion magazine asked if she had brought anything back, and she said, "I just brought this hat". It was put on the front page of a German fashion magazine, and the magazine said that the hats were for sale. They thought that they might have a few buyers; 20,000 hats were ordered instantly. That has changed those people's lives completely. They have reached the point now where they go to world trade fairs; and Plan no longer works there. That is our aim; to make people so self-sufficient and successful that they no longer need an NGO's help. That is what has happened there; those people do their own dealing and trading. Instead of going through so many people and getting virtually nothing for their work, they are getting a really good return for their money. Those things are important.
	I fear that Chile and some of the other Latin American countries may pose a challenge to Australia in the wine industry, because they are getting a good reputation. Australia is so pleased to be doing best; most wine that comes into this country is from Australia. They have overtaken the French. Of course, the gemstones in Brazil are unbelievable and very beautiful.
	If we intend to build up tourism and personal visits in those countries, personal safety is the one thing that tourists are looking for. That used to be the hazard in Rio; if you went to Rio you were lucky if your whole busload of people were not attacked; sometimes all 40 were attacked. I am hoping that things have improved. The debate today addresses "recent developments"; it would be interesting to know whether that has changed. If you go back to the old pre-war film, "Flying Down to Rio", Rio was the place to go from the United States. But people will now only go somewhere they feel safe. It is no good saying that it would be delightful and enjoyable, if you are worried every minute that someone is going to attack you. Personal safety is important.
	There are so many things that you could talk about, and time is limited. When I was in Bolivia, I went to Alto Plano. It just so happened that I was there. I was asked to open what I was told was a greenhouse at a school. Noble Lords would almost have called it a chicken shed, as it had a few little windows at the top. In the Alto Plano everything freezes every night. The children were learning how to grow lettuce, which you could not possibly grow outdoors. They asked me officially to open the greenhouse—they had a big ribbon tied across it. I got a bit carried away when they said that I could either cut it with scissors or pull the ribbon. I thought that the scissors sounded great fun and impressive. I had forgotten that it was a primary school, so they had given them non-cutting-type scissors to be safe for the children. I sawed away with the scissors for quite a time, and in the end I had to resort to pulling the string.
	You could go on and on with such examples. In Bolivia they formed cookers out of the local clay. They took the person's saucepans and moulded the oven-top around them when the clay set, so that instead of having to use a lot of wood to make a fire to make a small meal, it economised on the fuel, and you did not get the whole room jet black and sooty in the way that you used to when they cooked on an open fire. I remember those open fires in the country in Australia. It really was a pretty sooty way of cooking.
	All those things can and will be done if there is goodwill and co-operation between NGOs and governments. There is a growing closeness between the various bodies that must benefit everyone. We see here all the time the exported mange-tout peas from Guatemala. That is an excellent export, because it is high value in relation to the weight of the crop; therefore, it is very profitable. Again, Plan has worked with people so that they understand. They must feel that they possess the project, not that someone is imposing it on them. I went to see a place where they were teaching people to grow broccoli, but unfortunately they had not visited again soon enough, and the broccoli were six feet tall. They said, "Do you think it is time to cut this crop?". You must really follow it up and show them. In that area in the past they had not known any vegetable except potatoes, so there was a degree of malnutrition due to the lack of green vegetables. All those exports are important, and the whole way of life is improving for people.
	As my noble friend Lady Hooper said, Latin America is made up of 19 countries. It is a vast and fascinating subject. I make no excuses for just talking about NGOs, because an important part can be played by organisations other than direct government organisations. Perhaps the most important thing about today's debate is that it enables Members of this House to show how much we care about this very special part of the world and to remind others of the continuing importance of Latin America.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and congratulating her on securing this debate. My knowledge and experience of Latin America is woefully incomplete. However, what little experience I have concerns a rather remarkable story that had dramatic beginnings.
	As many noble Lords will know, the British Council has a strong presence in Peru. In 2000, it worked with the Peruvian Press Council to develop greater access to information in the country and thus also to secure greater transparency. Many of your Lordships may remember that in November 2000, at precisely the date of our three-day international conference, then-President Fujimori disappeared. As I stood up to speak, the conference hall suddenly emptied of journalists. There had been a rumour that President Fujimori was reclaiming his Japanese citizenship and had effectively fled Peru.
	The rumour turned out to be true, and it created a wonderful opportunity to push for access to information in both law and practice. In Latin America in particular, access to public information is a big issue in that it is perceived as the essential component of transparency and the fight against corruption, inequality and authoritarianism. British Council policy, and its strength, is to work with civil society groups and to act as the interface between the people and the government. In that, it is highly successful.
	The perspicacious process begun in that year has continued and developed into a regional movement towards transparency and democratic accountability that has far-reaching consequences. The process itself is interesting. Following the initial, international meeting that agreed the Lima Principles on Access to Information, there followed many more meetings. Some were national discussions involving the armed forces on how to provide legislation narrow enough to avoid misinterpretation of the law, yet wide enough to protect legitimate interests such as national security. I remember in particular that a seminar held in the ancient university city of Arequipa reserved the front two rows for senior armed forces personnel, who sat there resplendent in their uniforms with glittering medals—not a usual sight for a human rights gathering.
	Other meetings were at the more local level and concerned the implementation of laws into practices benefiting the rural population. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided the British Council with a two-year grant to disseminate the right of access to information to the local authorities, the judiciary, civil society and public officials. An ombudsman was appointed. A hotline was set up to receive and deal with complaints from all over the country. The first ever access-to-information law was passed in Lima in August 2002.
	A series of high-level meetings was held between the Peruvian Foreign Ministry and the permanent mission at the Organisation of American States, based in Washington DC. The result was the development of a co-ordinated policy to promote access to information throughout the Americas. In July 2003, the Peruvian delegation, working with the Peruvian Press Council, drafted an OAS resolution called Access to Information: strengthening democracy. The resolution was approved later that year.
	The speed of that process is, in the nature of such matters, breathtaking. But the process continued, with ever more efforts to persuade other Latin American countries to adopt enabling legislation. In October this year, the OAS will call a special session to exchange ideas and experiences with civil society organisations in information access. A document summarising best practices in the region would then become the basis for the OAS guidelines on access to information. In turn, that would act as an incentive for other countries in the region to adopt similar laws and practice.
	What is the point of this Peruvian story? At least two conclusions can be drawn. First, civil society organisations, which by definition occupy that space between the people and the government, are of vital importance in creating and maintaining democracy. In fact one might even go so far as to argue that, in the absence of a civil society community, transition from—let us say—authoritarian government towards democracy will be fraught and possibly fail. Civil society organisations tend to fill the vacuum that inevitably occurs during changes in political systems. What follows is that anything we can do to promote the strengthening of civil society—even in those countries where there is nothing approaching democracy—is a genuine democratic development. In the case of Peru, the synergistic forces of a new and open Foreign Ministry, and the Peruvian Press Council supported by the British Council, were impressive and effective.
	A second conclusion is that, of all the fundamental rights that individuals have—whether implemented or not— freedom of expression and access to information seem to be crucial in enforcing a degree of accountability on the part of government, and in affording people the opportunity to influence policies that affect their lives and livelihoods. In that sense, free speech, an independent media and access to information act together as the cornerstone of democracy.
	What makes the story stand out is the willingness of the Peruvian Government to work with civil society organisations, to adopt laws that would harness—and to some extent have harnessed—their own power, to make strong efforts to ensure proper implementation of laws and proper complaint mechanisms, and to promote transparency at the regional level. Those efforts have contributed—and will continue to contribute—to an ever-more democratic process at least in Peru, and possibly for the region more generally.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in the first debate today, I declared an interest as an ex officio member of the board of the Conservative Party. It may be more relevant to make that declaration now as, shortly before the previous debate ended and this debate began, I was summoned to join a conference call of the board at two o'clock.
	I was conscious of infringing the rubric of your Lordships' House by not being present when the opening speaker—my noble friend Lady Hooper—began the debate. I made my peace with her and gained some insight into what she would say. In those circumstances, I hope that the House will recall the definition in Blackstone's law dictionary of an act of God as an act that no reasonable man would expect God to commit, and forgive me for speaking in the debate not having been present at the beginning. I apologise especially to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, most of whose speech I also missed.
	I congratulate my noble friend on winning the ballot and introducing the subject, which is eminently worth while. I heard the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, whose speech I much enjoyed. My background to speaking is more modest than theirs, but perhaps worth recounting in the spirit not only of this debate, but of Latin American affairs.
	In 1964, I became engaged to my late first wife. When I announced it at breakfast, my brother—a lawyer and now a judge—said, "Ah yes; Brazil is one of the few countries where you can be married by proxy". It so happened that a proxy marriage was convenient, as my late first wife wished to leave the country on a Brazilian passport and travel thereafter on a British one; she was Anglo-Brazilian. We arranged that the civic ceremony, which is the critical one in Brazil, should take place on 3 March—my birthday, and therefore a date that we were likely to remember.
	On 4 March when I went to my office, fastening my seatbelt believing myself to be a married man, there was a telegram from the British consul-general in Sao Paulo, who was supposed to be representing me, to say that he had completely forgotten to go. I was therefore not married. We then had to devise another date between that and the church wedding in Sao Paulo that I would also be likely to remember. We chose St Patrick's Day on the grounds that the British consul-general was not likely to be taking part in Irish celebrations on that day. I was then married, and due to go out to be married in church on 6 April.
	In the week before 6 April, a coup occurred in Brazil against the then president, President Goulart. My late noble kinsman was at that stage Home Secretary, and the Foreign Office said that under no circumstances could the Home Secretary go into a war zone. The British consul-general in Sao Paulo, clearly anxious to make amends for the fact that he had not turned up at the initial civic ceremony, sent us a telegram that said, "All aviation gasoline commandeered. Have secured final place on final BOAC flight out of Sao Paulo for Mrs Brooke", as she then was. We sent back a stiff-upper-lip telegram that simply said, "Continuing to pack".
	Our faith in the oscillation of Latin American affairs was wholly confirmed, because Goulart moved to either Paraguay or Uruguay on the Wednesday. We flew out on the Thursday night, and I arrived in Sao Paulo on the Friday. The streets were still lined with tanks, which made for a new interpretation of a shotgun wedding. The rest of my family arrived at the weekend. The stock exchange, which had been shut for the whole of Friday, reopened on Monday and rose vertically by 85 per cent in the course of the day. In the index of a stock exchange, 85 per cent is a considerable amount of money. That greatly enhanced the celebrations of our church wedding, which occurred at six o'clock that evening. We honeymooned in Brazil and Peru but I fear that, before my first wife's death, I went back to Brazil on only a couple of occasions. Therefore, my credentials for speaking at large in this debate are extremely modest.
	On the other hand, in an international development debate in the last Session of the previous Parliament, I indicated that I had for 20 years chaired a British charity operating at 7,000 feet in the Andes in Peru. It started out as an archaeological charity working on Inca forts, and then became by way of the Inca canals a developmental charity as well. I shall not go over ground that I covered in that debate, however. After my wife's death, all three of my sons travelled widely in Latin America, wanting to know more about their mother's background; they were children or young people when she died. They travelled to at least two-thirds of the Latin American countries and, as a consequence, I acquired vicarious knowledge through them.
	I think that I am right in saying that the first reference to "Latin America" occurred as late as 1826. That would be later than the Monroe doctrine or the death of Canning. Yet, it coincided with the liberation movements and my former constituency in Westminster is studded with blue plaques to the liberators of various Latin American countries and who briefly lived in London during that time. Admiral Lord Cochrane, a British liberator of several Latin American countries and a predecessor of mine as the Member of Parliament for Westminster, is buried in the central nave of Westminster Abbey.
	It will be apparent from my modest credentials that I shall not make an exhaustive speech about every Latin American country. However, I shall mention a development that has been good, although it has not been accomplished without some vicissitude and controversy. I declare an interest as the pro vice-chancellor of the University of London. Those who take an interest in Latin American affairs will be aware of The Americas published in 2003 by Professor Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, which is a powerful polemic which argues that we should be looking at the affairs of Latin America and the United States together and that there is an overlap between them. That is why he called it The Americas, to provide a composite and portmanteau title. Given that neither of the Libraries in this Palace has a copy of that book, although they have copies of a number of books that he wrote in the 1990s, I have not been able to verify that one of his points to illustrate where we started from was that, of the 10 richest people in the United States, one was the beneficiary of "old" money, the others all made their fortunes in their own lifetimes. Whereas, in Latin America exactly the opposite was true. Nine were the beneficiaries of "old" money and one is an entrepreneur who made his money from his own resources.
	Perhaps, in part, due to Professor Fernandez-Armesto's book, the University of London, which previously had within its School of Advanced Study an Institute of Latin American Studies and an Institute of United States Studies, decided at a council meeting in December 2003, over which I presided, that those two bodies would be merged into a single institute. Some of the American advisers to the original American institute had understandably felt that that was not right, but I am confident that it has been a thoroughly satisfactory development in terms of raising the profile of Latin America and Latin American studies in this country. In the first instance, it will be a three-year experiment and we shall have to see how it goes but, so far, the omens are good.
	I am, due to sympathy with my late wife's provenance, from time to time embarrassed about how little some of us know about Latin America. Therefore, my noble friend's initiative on starting this debate has been admirable and I hope that the initiative in the University of London will play some part in increasing our knowledge.

Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing this debate. Sadly, I disagree with her and my noble friend Lord Brooke, because one reason we in this country focus so seldom on that part of the world is that we use the all-embracing term "Latin America" and the even more all-embracing term, the "Americas". I always prefer to refer to the United States of America and Canada, when referring to north America and, when referring to points south, I prefer to say "central America" and "south America", because the focus is much more closely aligned to what one is talking about. However, I have great respect for their views.
	Most of what I shall say in this short speech will be about Argentina. However, I also wish to say something about south America as a whole. It is quite extraordinary that in the debate last Thursday on the Queen's Speech concerning defence and international affairs it seemed that there was nowhere in the world beyond Europe, except for Africa. Sadly, many African countries appear to be poorly governed and many people live in poverty. We are extremely distressed about that. However, that is also the case in many parts of the world. Why can we not focus more on such matters in south-east Asia, the Indian sub-continent and south America?
	There are several countries in South America where there is poverty—for instance, the favelas of Rio and the slums of Isla Marsial outside Buenos Aires. In the past, British investment has played an important part in the development of many South American countries—especially in railway systems, not least in the Argentine. There is enormous potential for future investment, in spite of some unsatisfactory economic regimes.
	I set foot in Argentina for the first time 50 years ago. It was then suffering under the corrupt and oppressive dictatorship of General Peron. I was there when there was, first, an unsuccessful revolt and then later in that year, 1955, a successful revolution when he was removed from power. My experience of that country during that visit, which lasted for a year, ranged from Buenos Aires, in particular, the northern provinces of Santa Fe, Entre Rios, Corriantes and Formosa, and right down to Rio Gallegos in the south. My old company, Bovril, which was why I was in Argentina, had estancias and meat-packing factories, I learned much about cattle and how to put them in cans.
	After that initial visit, I returned several times until the company was taken over in 1971. Sadly, I have not been back since but I have followed the fluctuating fortunes of Argentina ever since. Unfortunately, recent history has not changed the impression of economic instability that I first encountered in 1955, although from time to time things have appeared to be much improved, for short periods sadly, only to revert to hyper-inflation or other horrors.
	For example, in 2002, Argentina went from a country widely held up as a model of successful free market reform to one that defaulted on its public debt of some $155 billion. Since then there has been an enormous restructuring of Argentina's debt, where creditors have had to accept a cut in principal, a lengthening of maturity and a reduction in payment of interest.
	Despite that, Argentina's debt will still be more than $120 billion. Can the Minister say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the Argentine Government are encouraged to maintain fiscal stamina and to negotiate settlements with the large number of foreign firms that are owed so much? That might eventually attract the much-needed investment which would transform prospects for the Argentine economy in the middle and long term.
	I turn to a completely different subject. Last Sunday, the Sunday Express carried an extensive report that there was increased tension in the Falkland Islands and that 2,000 extra troops were being sent to boost the garrison. As we know, Argentina has always laid claim to these islands, which it calls the Islas Malvinas, and we accept that while in no way agreeing. Perhaps the Minister will enlarge on that situation. Is there any truth in the report in the Sunday Express and, if so, what contingency plans are there in case it develops into a dangerous situation? Can he confirm that a frigate or destroyer is on station off the islands? Can he also confirm that recently there have been joint exercises off the island between Argentine and British naval forces?
	Argentina is a great country of which I am very fond. It always seems to be able to pull out of its difficulties. It has great advantages. It is a most attractive and varied country ranging from the freezing and windy Tierra del Fuego in the south to the tropical forests of the north by way of some of the most productive countryside and farmland in the world. I can strongly recommend it to your Lordships if a visit is being considered.

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 January be approved.
	The noble Lord said My Lords, the order introduces a specific measure that is broadly in line with one already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Enterprise Act 2002. I will comment briefly and say a few words about the order.
	The main purpose of the order is to protect consumers by providing a deterrent to company directors engaging in price fixing or other abuses of competition law. The order makes it possible for a director of a company that is in breach of competition law to be disqualified for up to 15 years. The order is considered to be non-controversial. Consultation was carried out in Northern Ireland. A small number of replies were received, the majority of which were favourable. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 January be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this is another statutory instrument which we are happy to support. On reading in the Explanatory Notes about the consultation process, it is clear that considerable consultation has taken place. Part of it went before the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to its suspension, and both the Law Society and the Office of Law Reform were involved. I have received no communication from the Law Society, which I am sure would have been in touch had there been any problems. I also passed it across to my noble friend Lord Kingsland, the Shadow Lord Chancellor. I am happy to support the order.